[ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency

[Emlyn]

2009/2/1 Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com>:
> On 1/31/09, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The communist
>>> would therefore agree with you that a person should keep the fruits of
>>> his labour. An exception might be made on compassionate grounds for
>>> transferring some wealth to those who are poor and unable to work, but
>>> certainly not for transferring wealth from the workers to the rich and
>>> powerful.
>>>
>>
>> Either I keep what is my own to dispose of it as I wish or I do not. Why
>> is it up to someone else what part of my wealthy goes to those some may
>> judge to be poor and needy?  So the only sin is for your work to be
>> voluntarily judge to be of more value by those who wish to acquire it than
>> the work of your neighbor?
>
>
> I propose to you what I would call a deep wealth theory, and I'll contrast
> it with your statement here, which I will describe as a shallow wealth
> theory.  The shallow wealth theory, I offer, is the idea that the wealth
> springs no further than from the individual him or herself.  The individual
> builds a car or whatever else, and therefore the value of that car comes
> from that individual alone.
>
> The deep wealth theory differs in that the value of the car doesn't come
> from that individual, but it's value is only the peak of an ice berg, so to
> speak; that is, the product of thousands of years of development.  The
> automobile, obviously, is a piece of technology, and technology, foremost,
> is knowledge.  So in order to determine the real value of that car, we'd
> have to go far back into the indefinite past.  We have the development of
> mathematics to thank, as well as logic, science; additionally, we must thank
> the industrial revolution, and the development of engineering.  We must
> thank the steam engine, and the science of thermodynamics that emerged as a
> result.  And on and on, of course.  The idea is that a product like an
> automobile isn't just a "thing" produced by knowing hands, but the
> embodiment of a great deal of development, of which we and our hands are
> just the surface of.
>
> So, when you make a statement like "my wealth", I just get this funny
> feeling.  It's not just your choice of words, but everything behind them.
> But this idea of deep wealth, just a term that I've not been able to
> describe fully before, is what prevents me from taking these principles of
> libertarianism serious.  That and it's ideology.
>
> Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org

Deep wealth / shallow wealth, I like it.

btw, why are we arguing socialism vs capitalism on exi-chat? On the
gripping hand(*), post scarcity is the thing.

These scarcity based philosophies are all rationing, deciding who
can't have something. Crappy and boring.

Technically minded people can do better. Ask yourself "how can I make
something free forever for everyone?". You can assume volunteers and
donations to help bridge the gap between "now" and "success", and you
can assume that free just means so very cheap that you can disregard
the price.

If enough of us can do that, rationing is moot.

(*) apologies to Damien for inducing Nivencringe

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site